Advertisement

Sycamore failure hazard classification model (SFHCM): an environmental decision support system (EDSS) in urban green spaces

  • A. JahaniEmail author
Original Paper
  • 157 Downloads

Abstract

Although the pruning of trees is known as the one of the principal domains of green space management, it is includes shortcomings in practical models or methodologies to classify or prioritize hazardous trees. This paper aims to formulate physical and biological and associated tree factors with sycamore failure probability which results to classify tree failure hazard using artificial neural network (ANN) modeling, as an environmental decision support system (EDSS). Considering the outputs of modeling process, multi-layer feed-forward network (MLFN), which is used to train sycamore (Platanus orientalis) failure hazard classification model (SFHCM), indicates that the performance of SFHCM is statistically accurate. Changes in physical and biological tree factors with the maximum priority in sensitivity analysis assist decision makers to increase SFHCM class and decrease tree failure hazard. Finally a soundly applicable EDSS with new tool is designed for green space managers to prioritize criteria in sycamore failure hazard in order to plan for the most appropriate mitigation plan.

Keywords

Hazardous tree Neural network Decision making Sensitivity analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the University of Tehran for partially cooperation in data collection. We are thankful to our colleagues who provided expertise that greatly assisted the research.

References

  1. Argent RM, Perraud JM, Rahman JM, Grayson R, Podger GM (2009) A new approach to water quality modelling and environmental decision support systems. Environ Model Softw 24(7):809–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boillereaux L, Cadet C, Le Bail A (2003) Thermal properties estimation via real time neural network learning. J Food Eng 57:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton E (2002) Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. Environ Plan 29:219–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cortés U.M, Sànchez-Marrè L, Ceccaroni I, Roda R, Poch M (2000) Artificial intelligence and environmental decision support systems. Appl Intell 13(1):77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curie M (1991) Whose responsibility? Arboric J 15:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elmahdi A, McFarlane D (2009) A decision support system for sustainable groundwater management. Case study: Gnangara sustainability strategy – Western Australia. International Congress on Modeling and Simulation, Australia Modeling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand. 18th World IMACS / MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia, 13–17 July 2009Google Scholar
  7. Flueckiger W, Braun S (1999) Stress factors of urban trees and their relevance for vigour and predisposition for parasite attacks. Acta Hortic (ISHS) 496:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harris RW (1992) Arboriculture: integrated management of landscape trees, shrubs, and vines, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 674Google Scholar
  9. Hussain MA, Safiur M, Rahman CW (2002) Prediction of pores formation (porosity) in foods during drying: generic models by the use of hybrid neural network. J Food Eng 51:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T (2010) Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci 25(1):51–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jahani A (2017) Sycamore failure hazard risk modeling in urban green space. J Spat Anal Environ Hazards 3(4):35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jahani A, Feghhi J, Makhdoum MF, Omid M (2016) Optimized forest degradation model (OFDM): an environmental decision support system for environmental impact assessment using an artificial neural network. J Environ Plan Manag 59(2):222–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jim CY (1993) Soil compaction as a constraint to tree growth in tropical and subtropical urban habitats. Environ Conserv 20:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jim CY (2005) Monitoring the performance and decline of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. J Environ Manag 74:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jim CY, Liu HT (1997) Storm damage on urban trees in Guangzhou, China. Landsc Urban Plan 38:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jim CY, Zhang H (2013) Defect-disorder and risk assessment of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Urban For Urban Green 12:585–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matheny NP, Clark JR (1994) A photographic guide to the evaluation of hazard trees in urban areas. International Society of Arboriculture, Urbana, pp 54–55Google Scholar
  18. Mattheck C, Breloer H (1994) Field guide for visual tree assessment (vta). Arboric J Int J Urban For 18(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mynors C (1993) Trees and the law. Arboric J 17:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pellissier V, Roze F, Clergeau P (2010) Constraints of urbanization on vegetation dynamics in a growing city: a chronological framework in Rennes (France). In: Muller N, Werner P, Kelcey JG (eds) Urban biodiversity and design. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 206–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sablani SS, Baik OD, Marcotte M (2002) Neural networks for predicting thermal conductivity of bakery products. J Food Eng 52:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, Campolongo F, Cariboni J, Gatelli D, Saisana M, Tarantola S (2008) Global sensitivity analysis. Wiley, New York, pp 43–47Google Scholar
  23. Sani L, Lisci R, Moschi M, Sarri D, Rimediotti M, Vieri M, Tofanelli S (2012) Preliminary experiments and verification of controlled pulling tests for tree stability assessments in Mediterranean urban areas. Biosyst Eng 112(3):218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sieghardt M, Mursch-Radlgruber E, Paoletti E, Couenberg E, Dimitrakopoulus A, Rego F, Hatzistathis A, Randrup TB (2005) The abiotic urban environment: impact of urban growing conditions on urban vegetation. In: Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J (eds) Urban forests and trees. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 281–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sreekanth S, Ramaswamy HS, Sablani SS (1998) Prediction of sychrometric parameters using neural networks. Dry Technol 16(3–5):825–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sreetheran M, Adnan M, Khairil Azuar AK (2011) Street tree inventory and tree risk assessment of selected major roads in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Arboric Urban For 37:226–235Google Scholar
  27. Statistical Center of Iran (2011) The results of people and houses statistic. Statistical Center of Iran Press, Tehran, pp 2453–2466Google Scholar
  28. Tello ML, Tomalak M, Siwecki R, Gáper J, Motta E, Ateo-Sagasta E (2005) Biotic urban growing conditions: threats, pests and diseases. In: Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J (eds) Urban forests and trees: a reference book. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 325–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Terho M, Hallaksela AM (2005) Potential hazard characteristics of Tilia, Betula, and Acer trees removed in the Helsinki City Area during 2001–2003. Urban For Urban Green 3:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Twery J, Peter D, Scott A (2005) NED-2: a decision support system for integrated forest ecosystem management. Comput Electron Agric 49:24–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zangeneh M, Omid M, Akram A (2010) Assessment of machinery energy ratio in potato production by means of artificial neural network. Afr J Agric Res 5(1):993–998Google Scholar
  32. Znidarsic M, Bohanec M, Zupan B (2006) ProDEX - A DSS tool for environmental decision-making. Environ Model Softw 21(2):1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Environment and Biodiversity DepartmentCollege of Environment, Iranian Department of EnvironmentKarajIran

Personalised recommendations